Will Rolo make a statement at some point?
- Thread starter 79COUG
- Start date
Why not? You think they could make him sign an NDA as their foot was squarely up his ass? I would find it hard to believe he's willing to get canned over getting a shot but then sells out to sign and nda.
I’m not sure Rolo can tell the truth, since he acted like a petulant child since the outing back during the PAC-12 media days.
To be dishonest is to capitulate and agree to something that goes against your beliefs. Hth ..
"See you in court".....would suffice.
After his court fight is over. As I recall Mike Leach did not have much to say about his case against TTU until the litigation was concluded. Rolo will be quiet publicly and bide his time until this works its way through.
Not so sure. The mandate in Washington is far broader than the mandates in other states. The lack of a testing alternative raises issues.
Especially when the state got money for testing from the Federal Government. I doubt the State of Washington gave that money back.
I met with my estate attorney yesterday, and she said that the number of lawsuits as a result of this mandate is going to be staggering. There will be hundreds, if not thousands of people with valid cases against the state. Cancer survivors afraid of side effects, people with asthma, religious/moral belief cases. It's going to be a mess for sure.
Would US military requiring vaccines either for COVID or the many other vaccines they have required without a testing alternative raise the same issues?
Comparing civilian laws with the UCMJ is asinine at best. Do better please.
Most cases will be through union representing state employees and will likely be more limited about exemptions/accommodations for individual employees. but so far these unions are not challenging the mandate as a whole, and indicated that type of challenge would likely lose.
If the contention is there may be constitutional issues, is your contention that the constitution does not apply to US government as employer?
so you suggest it is not an issue in that context. So what are the reasons there is no issue in military context that distinguish it from state employee mandate and will these differences be enough?
I never said that..... Application of laws differ between CIVILIAN and Military based on the aforementioned UCMJ. But we are now seeing that being circumvented by woke military elitists in the name of self-righteousness. But only if that self-righteousness is rooted in the narrative Du Jour.
By being so quick to deride the comparison made regarding the legal issues, likely mostly constitutional issues, you are implying that, whether intentionally or only because of your limited understanding. The constitutional issues may or may not apply the same to both, but it is a relevant comparison legally.
How is it limited? Just because you made a joke of comparison that was aptly called out, you go on the defensive? Constitutionality only applies in situations not covered by the UCMJ. Its apparent you've never served a day in your life but if you did, you'd know that the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution for obvious reasons but its apparent its not so obvious to you.
Nice try, but no, USMJ does not supersede the constitution. Even where members of the military may enjoy more limits on some of their constitutional rights than civilians, it is not because the USMJ supersedes the constitution. But I’m sure DOJ will welcome your legal insights in litigation defending US from class action plaintiff service members challenging the mandate.
Please, in all of your infinite wisdom, tell me how you came to this conclusion. I was active military for 4.5 years serving the majority of it overseas. The running joke while serving was that you had no rights when you're active duty. Not at all true but please educate us on how awesome you are in area of military law and justice. You do know that you can be tried twice for the same crime in both a court martial and in civilian court of law? There is no such legal statute that carries over to the military in the instance of "double jeopardy".
Maybe try reading up on the subject?
When you join the military you know ahead of time that you will be required to take all kinds of vaccines and other drugs, and you agree to do so when you sign your papers. This mandate went into effect more than a year after Rolovich signed his contract.
I don’t need to practice in the area of military law to quickly understand that your claim that iUSMJ supersedes the constitution is clearly wrong, and nothing in the article you cite says so. See if you can find that as rationale in the any of the cases cited.
Yes, service members have many of their rights limited, your claim goes far beyond that. And given that there is a class action lawsuit on the mandate for service members right now, the question is relevant.
But the Covid vaccine was not among those at time the service members signed up. make a difference?
Unions are quiet because they are extensions of the Governor’s party. If Inslee was in the GOP they would be howling bloody murder. I don’t care for either party but it is what it is.
It goes beyond just saying its "limited". But even if just limited, they're being limited by what again? Oh, that's right... The UCMJ.
